turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Inconsistencies in Turtledove's Work
Robert Lansing Aren't 50 years of butterflies enough to think that people who were enemies in OTL could be friends in the ATL? :You'd think so but HT offers more evidence to the contrary than anything. The point is, both known secretaries in Roosevelt's Cabinet seem to have been chosen by HT for no other reason than that they filled those spots at the same time in real US history, which is INSANE!! :As for arguing for butterflies in general, the case is weakened somewhat by the fact that we're discussing an AH story whose root philosophy is "Let's change one variable and watch how everything else unfolds in parallel fashion over a long period of time." Turtle Fan 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Patton In regards to inconsistency no.8 under Southern Victory, Patton's family was from Virginia. His grandfather fought for the south in the Army Of Northern Virginia. If the south won the war, its possible and even likely he would have been born in the south.Bschur 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) :AAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :We should start imposing discipline for repeating that tired old whine. Turtle Fan 03:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC) From Wikipedia: Graduating from the Virginia Military Institute in 1877, Patton's father served as L.A. County District Attorney and the first City Attorney for the city of Pasadena, California and the first mayor of San Marino. It's not that likely, though still possible, that Patton's father would leave the Confederacy for a Union State if the south had won. Being a graduate from a military academy would have set him in hot water during the events of How Few Remain, as Sam Clemens was brought in for questioning for his 'involvement' during the War of Secession.Steelblade 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC) The point is, we don't retcon for HT. We point out where he made mistakes. Given his history of ignoring people's birth states in this timeline and assigning them to wherever he damn well pleased, I don't see why everyone's so damned certain he got this one right without his having dropped any hints that he did so. History seems to be against that assumption. Turtle Fan 04:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :In fairness, you are basing this on Daniels, who is relatively obscure (and looking over his history, I grow to suspect that HT knew exactly what he was doing). Patton is VERY well known in this country. I think it plausible that HT was aware of the butterflies when assigning Patton to the CS. TR 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::There's also Walker, who is not obscure at all. And if Daniels is so obscure, doesn't it become less likely that HT pored over the record and figured out a butterfly scenario, not more? I mean, this was the same time he couldn't even be bothered keeping Carsten's and Enos's character histories straight, for God's sake. ::Well, the version I wrote bears the precious disclaimer for everyone who wants it--as does the "Possible Explanation" category, which over the years has been moved from the bottom of the page to the top. There's just no pleasing some people. Turtle Fan 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::I am forced to agree with Turtlefan in Walker's case. His parents Stayed in the north for the whole time, moving to Missouri, a Northern State in 1857 and remaining there till at least 1892, according to Wikipedia.Steelblade 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :::No, Walker is pretty clear. As for Daniels, hard to say, since I wasn't looking over HT's shoulder when he did the research (no one here was), but he was introduced early in the series, when HT seemed to be more careful. TR 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Daniels would have served early in the series, but he did so offstage. He was introduced in DttE, when most of us noticed HT getting sloppy. Turtle Fan 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) North and South border "In The Victorious Opposition, Armstrong Grimes attends a high school history class in which the question "What happened to the border between the United States and the Confederate States between the end of the War of Secession and the end of the Great War?" is "correctly" answered "Nothing." In fact, the border was extended in 1881 with the Confederate purchase of the states of Chihuahua and Sonora from Mexico." Whoever posted this as an error got caught with a trick question. The questions ask to 'the border between', not 'the borders of' since the two states in question are not set between the Confederacy and the Union.Steelblade 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :But a border's a one-dimensional line, and if extending the length of such a line doesn't count as something happening to it nothing does. You're saying it refers only to line segments? I don't know, sounds like an odd semantic trick. I'll agree that "between" doesn't seem like the natural choice of preposition in that situation, but as I recall the teacher was promptly blown out of the water by one of her own students, so I'm not sure she was clever enough to conceal a trick question--and a pretty bizarre one at that--behind an odd word choice. And if she were, wouldn't she try to squeeze out of it a way to defend herself against the kid? Turtle Fan 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :::It may be a trick question or poor teaching skills, but the question still refers to only the parts of the border which connect the two countries. While the CS gained to Mexican States, it is also true the the US lost part of Northern Maine to Canada. But the US lost no territory to the CS, likely the point of the poorly phrased question.Steelblade 19:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::::The context of the subsequent discussion, what happens to the three states taken from the CS, suggests bad semantics. TR 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :::::The border extension did go between the two Americas, though. The northern Maine thing had nothing to do with the US-CS border; the acquisition of the Mexican states did. It's not that important, but if we are lost in a semantic thicket, I fail to see the obvious way out that seems so obvious to you guys. Turtle Fan 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Arizona and New Mexico The Arizona Organic Act had passed the U.S. House before the POD and would likely have passed the Senate in 1863 despite the changed circumstances. 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Quebec and Labrador The border between Quebec and Labrador was not settled in OTL until 1927 with a settlement by the British Privy Council that was totally in favor of Labrador. It is unlikely that the Republic of Quebec would have accepted that boundary and at minimum gained the boundary used on official provincial maps today. 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I don't recall any mention of the boundaries in the books. If you are basing it on the maps, then all the Great War maps are incorrect since the current provincial boundaries in OTL were the ones depicted on those maps and were not set until the 1920s too. Until then, Ontario and Quebec only included the watershed of the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence. They did not include the former Hudson's Bay Co. holdings of Rupert's land around Hudson's Bay / James Bay. In my opinion, map errors should not be considered HT Inconsistencies since they are not his work. ML4E 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) That's not the case. Save for the Quebec-Labrador boundary dispute, the boundaries for all of Canada's provinces had reached their current form by 1912 in OTL. The boundary between Ontario and Quebec was set in its final form in 1898 with Ungava added to Quebec in 1912. 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) My mistake, 4.154.2.205 is correct. This is a link to a Government of Canada website that gives the http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1912 1912 Provincial Boundaries which should have been the base map for the GW books. you can see the smaller Labrador boundaries that he is taking about. Never-the-less, I don't think HT mentioned this one way or the other so I don't think it should be considered an inconsistency. ML4E 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Josephus Daniels Another Josephus Daniels inconsistency is that in OTL, he lived until 1948 and IIRC, the USN at that time did not name ships after living people. Of course, he may have died sooner in TL-191. 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Worldwar Barbara larrsen forgets the meaning of fubar between in the balance and titling the balance In Down to Earth the ratio of men to women on the Lewis and lark is given as 3 to 1 while in Aftershocks it is 2 to 1 :Well, throw 'em in there. :In the latter's case I seem to recall it had something to do with the second US starship joining the first. In the former's--HT sure loves giving himself the chance to insert the little quip about "fouled up, but not really" into the dialogue. Turtle Fan 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC) ::They can't; it's protected. TR 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) :::Only against unregistered users. Turtle Fan 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) :::: Dialogue from on of Johnson's scene indiactes that they don't have the crew ratios combined. I made the edit.--Darthbalmung 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Tau Ceti Are you sure they didn't say "about ten light-years"? And by the way, isn't Tau Ceti supposed to be too metal-deficient to form terrestrial planets? Turtle Fan 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Isabella's and Albert's Wedding That's one of the oh-so-few here that's been addressed to even my satisfaction. Philip wanted her married before he installed her in London, and his brother obliged. Furthermore this was his stated plan when he planned the campaign. I guess after back-to-back ascensions of single women, neither of whom produced an heir of any sort, he might have expected the stability offered by a married queen taking the throne right away, with promises of children to come. Though now that I think of it, the Hapsburgs were never said to have produced issue either, meaning that the RB English, like the OTL ones, had to wait (assuming the Stuarts assumed the throne in 1603 as in OTL) sixty-six years between kings with sons and undisputed heirs in place. (And there were those who disputed Edward VI, since his mother was so far from unique in having been queen and even the most Protestant of monogamists were growing weary of the queen-of-the-month club. That takes us all the way back to Henry's birth in, what was it, 1491? England went the entire sixteenth century without a single prince being born and making his birth stick.) Turtle Fan 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) :Fairly put, Turtle Fan. I can see that happening, although I find it slightly far-fetched to have her married off so soon. I know, I know, Catherine of Aragon was married off young too, it's just odd to see the decade speeded up like that. And damn, you're right about the 16th century being relatively princeless. Also, Queen of the Month Club conjured up a pretty hilarious mental image of Henry VIII and the QoMC. :) Can you tell I'm tryign not to write a paper right now? Elefuntboy 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ::It wasn't just Catherine of Aragon; young marriages were the norm for princes in those days. Dynastic marriages were matters of alliance and when an alliance had been planned it needed to be cemented quickly; wait till the young lovers-to-be had come of age and any number of things might crop up in the interim to disrupt the desirable match. That the Tudor queens entered adulthood without husbands was the exception, not the rule, and bespoke just how tenuous were both of their holds on legitimacy. No one was going to give high priority to a princess who'd been declared a bastard just last month and was liable to be so again next month. Turtle Fan 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Ophelia Clemens Didn't exist. Clemens oldest daughter in OTL was Olivia Clemens, named for her mother. She went by Susy. TR 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC) So HT screwed up the name? Turtle Fan 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I'd say its more likely a "Daniel MacArthur" type of thing since Clemens married a different woman in TL-191. ML4E 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC) He did? Huh, never noticed. Turtle Fan 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Teddy Roosevelt? Has anyone done anything on TR? Wasn't his mother a Confederate? I doubt he'd have been as successful in American politics with a Rebel mom in this timeline.... Elefuntboy 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC) :Not quite. His maternal grandfather was a blockade runner. The mother had already moved north before the war and in fact had given birth to her son (1858) before Sumter came under fire. Plenty of people moved around between north and south in the antebellum, as befits a single, united nation, and quite a few had ties on the other side. In most cases it was up to the individual to declare allegiance. And anyway, Roosevelt's career in this timeline was a meritocratic one: he earned his own high political stock in Montana during MW2 and never let it drop until the labor nonsense in B&I. His personal heroism would easily drown out any accusations that his pedigree was not quite correct enough. Turtle Fan 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Braswell Monument Was indeed real, as was Benjamin Braswell. Whether or not it still stands, I can't quite figure out, but as of 1946, the monument was still there. TR 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :No kidding. I looked long and hard for it when IatD came out. Turtle Fan 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::So did I, and found nothing. But HT really likes dropping local "flavor" into his works like that, so I got bored and tried again. I found his web page run by his descendants, a copy of his will, and a 1946 book about Georgia tourist attractions. No pictures, though. TR 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :::Wait, you actually tracked down a copy of his will as well as some tourist guide from the mid 40s? Jelay14 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::::On the web, yes. I'm not that tenacious. TR 23:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Oh, okay. ^_^ Jelay14 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::That's the Internet for ya. ::::::Can we write an article about Braswell? Turtle Fan 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::What we have is what I could find. Aside from selling his slaves and giving the money to educate poor kids, Braswell doesn't seem to have made many ripples in history. TR 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::There must at least be DOB and DOD. Turtle Fan 06:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC) :::::We have DOD. TR 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Arango I don't think it's insignificant to mention that he moved to Chihuahua long after it changed hands. Another possibility is that the Rad Libs knew they didn't have a prayer of winning no matter who their candidate was, so eligibility would never become an issue. Therefore they ran someone who would launch firey attacks against Semmes and wound him, maybe get enough RL voters to turn out to pick up a few Congressional seats. Turtle Fan 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :There's no evidence that shows when he moved to Chihuahua. He could have been just before or years after. This issue is not addressed in the books. TR 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ::Hard evidence, no. There is however a great deal of circumstancial evidence if one considers that oh-so-much of the offstage history of people and events that played supporting roles in the series unfolded on OTL patterns till it came into contact with the changed circumstances in America. Turtle Fan 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :And Mexico's contact with the circumstances in America came almost instanteously with that change. TR 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Mexico's, yes. Mexicans', maybe not. Nineteenth-century Mexican governments were not known for offering their people high levels of political efficacy, least of all the government that got butterflied into a stable long-term existence. Turtle Fan 07:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :My overall point is that the information we have is that he was born in Durango, and magically he's a CS citizen. I think you're getting hung up on the incidentals. It's an inconsistency enough to say "He was born in Durango, Mexico, but is depicted as a CS citizen." Trying to layer on additional points to make HT "more inconsistent" is unnecessary, especially since those points are speculative. :The simple truth will do. TR 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::Very well. I do enjoy the chance to geek out, though. ::If that's the case, perhaps "It's possible he moved but HT never addresses this" should also be removed. Turtle Fan 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::Done. TR 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Jennie Jerome TR, did you delete the 191 Inconsistency about Churchill's mother? That's still an inconsistency we can and should address. We'd just need to undo the link. Turtle Fan 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :If you can't live without it. TR 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::Maybe later. ::Jennie had to go but I kind of miss her. She certainly did get around! And I believe it ran in the family--Wasn't she herself rumored to be some President's bastard or other? Turtle Fan 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) FDR Who says someone from an alternate party can't be a member of the Cabinet. Plus, he was a hawkish Socalist and therefore quite a likely choice for Secretary of war (this is during the Pacific war you know), Hurley's a Southerner and Good's dead. - 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) :It's possible, and certainly the article on FDR was written in such a way, but his party affiliation is unaddressed in TCCH, and the parties were quite partisan in the series generally, so it seems quite strange that a Socialist reached that level in a Democrat's cabinet. TR 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::Daniels reached higher still, and at a time when the Democrats felt they could laugh off their opposition. Of course he's never called a Socialist, either, and we know HT already got one huge detail wrong on his count. Besides, Daniels appears to have been more of a philosophical socialist than anything else. ::Other than that I agree with TR. And come on, FDR's appearance really makes no sense at all. Turtle Fan 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::Turtledove probably couldn't think of a conservative to take the job, because, like I said, Hurley's a Southerner and Good's dead. So its quite likely he'd opt for a Socalist, and FDR's the perfect choice since he's hawkish on foreign policy, plus Blacford's just been First Lady, and there probably the only hawkish Socalists in the party, or atleast Congress. - 07:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)